If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

My thoughts as well. You do not enforce the law by destroying evidence.
Further, any lawyer representing the photographer is going to point out
that the cop was obviously attempting to destroy evidence that he was
committing a crime.

If his actions were not police brutality, then he should have welcomed
the photos, not destroyed them.

You say "his actions". I understand that you don't have the complete
story (because I don't have it to relate), but what indication do you
have that he was involved in the arrest action at all?

After all, you are the person who pointed out that he would *not* be
part of the arrest team. He, according you, would be restricted to
being an observer of the arrest.

No, actually, I am not that person.

His reaction was allegedly based on not wanting the undercover drug
task force team's photographs available for distribution in the drug
community. Photographs would capture the faces of the observers as
well as the officers directly involved in the arrest actions.

A photograph someone 'observing' the arrest would be no different than
any other bystander. You are really grasping at straws here.

Your statement is akin to "If you were not beating your wife, you've
done nothing wrong". It plants the idea that the person is considered
one who would be violent.

My thoughts as well. You do not enforce the law by destroying evidence.
Further, any lawyer representing the photographer is going to point out
that the cop was obviously attempting to destroy evidence that he was
committing a crime.

If his actions were not police brutality, then he should have welcomed
the photos, not destroyed them.

You say "his actions". I understand that you don't have the complete
story (because I don't have it to relate), but what indication do you
have that he was involved in the arrest action at all?

After all, you are the person who pointed out that he would *not* be
part of the arrest team. He, according you, would be restricted to
being an observer of the arrest.

No, actually, I am not that person.

I apologize for confusing ducks and eagles.

His reaction was allegedly based on not wanting the undercover drug
task force team's photographs available for distribution in the drug
community. Photographs would capture the faces of the observers as
well as the officers directly involved in the arrest actions.
A photograph someone 'observing' the arrest would be no different than
any other bystander. You are really grasping at straws here.

My comment had to do with the insinuation of police brutality on the
part of Robbie as the motivation for destroying the images. If he
was not directly involved in the arrest, there would be no reason for
him to object on these grounds. His objection was based on his
identity being recorded, not based on what he was doing at the time.
Your statement is akin to "If you were not beating your wife, you've
done nothing wrong". It plants the idea that the person is considered
one who would be violent.
? I don't get this at all. You are raving here.

Your statement - "If his actions were not police brutality...then he
should have welcomed the photo" - plants the idea that police
brutality on his part was a motivation. His motivation was from an
entirely different reason.

Like the "beating your wife" cliche, saying "No, I wasn't" doesn't
remove the impression created when "If you were not beating your wife"
was made.
The kangaroo is the elephant in the room.

And now you have crossed over into madness.

It's a reference to a kangaroo court where unrelated, unsubstantiated,
charges (police brutality on the part of Robbie) are introduced as a
part of a sham proceeding.